How'd it get there?













(first person to identify the quote wins ... first place.)

Photochoped it! lol

How'd it get there?











(first person to identify the quote wins ... first place.)

Dumb and Dumber?

you know -- this is off topic kinda. All the people that think the moon landing was fake, why dont they get a nice powerful telescope and find the flag and the old rover and landing module? The footage of the landing was obviously in an area that was lit by the sunlight - and since the lit side stays lit 100% of the time you should be able to find it.

If we can see galaxies and even find hits of planets in other solar systems we can find a flag on our own moon correct?

It would take a powerfull telescope like the Hubble to see anything that small. The light coming from the moon is too bright and would burn out the sensors on the Hubble.

This is what really happened July 20th 1969.

http://images.dr3vil.com/files2/default/1144802146461fc2d.gif

you know -- this is off topic kinda. All the people that think the moon landing was fake, why dont they get a nice powerful telescope and find the flag and the old rover and landing module? The footage of the landing was obviously in an area that was lit by the sunlight - and since the lit side stays lit 100% of the time you should be able to find it.

If we can see galaxies and even find hits of planets in other solar systems we can find a flag on our own moon correct?

That's what I've always thought. Its an interesting concept but I don't think you need the hubble to see something that detailed. Actually it'd just be a matter of math. Heh now I'm curious as to what you'd need to see it. I'll post back later.

-Edit-

I was right and wrong.
Check the link for details.
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=134

Dumb and Dumber?
Nope. A movie even dumber.

mystery science theater 3000

mystery science theater 3000
The Beast Of Yucca Flats (which was featured on episode 621 of MST3K)

We have two winnas.

The Beast Of Yucca Flats (which was featured on episode 621 of MST3K)
Did you know the episode number by heart? If so, I'm impressed.

Did you know the episode number by heart? If so, I'm impressed.

If so, I feel really, really, really bad for you. Poor guy

Did you know the episode number by heart? If so, I'm impressed.
I've never actually watched the show, so no. I just used Google. That's where I get all my information as well as how I make all my decisions in life.

That's what I've always thought. Its an interesting concept but I don't think you need the hubble to see something that detailed. Actually it'd just be a matter of math. Heh now I'm curious as to what you'd need to see it. I'll post back later.

-Edit-

I was right and wrong.
Check the link for details.
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=134



maybe they should have built a large building in the handfull of hours they were there.

you know -- this is off topic kinda. All the people that think the moon landing was fake, why dont they get a nice powerful telescope and find the flag and the old rover and landing module? The footage of the landing was obviously in an area that was lit by the sunlight - and since the lit side stays lit 100% of the time you should be able to find it.

:Eyecrazy: Ummm... you don't have to travel to the moon to know that it doesn't stay lit 100% of the time. It has day and night, just like the Earth. Take a look!


If we can see galaxies and even find hits of planets in other solar systems we can find a flag on our own moon correct?

Certainly. It's a question of how large a telescope and how fine a detector you'd need to resolve an object a few feet across at over 200,000 miles. Doing it from the surface of the earth presents additional problems because the atmosphere distorts things. At one time it would have been impossible to do from the Earth's surface. Nowadays there are adaptive optics and arrays of many telescopes that allow you to composite many images and let the errors cancel out. Also, by utilizing groups of smaller telescopes separated over distance, in effect you've got the resolution power of a huge telescope.

Even amateur astronomers can take advantage of image "stacking"; taking hundreds or thousands of images and computationally determining what bits of the image are "real" and discarding those that are results of atmospheric interference.

Certainly. It's a question of how large a telescope and how fine a detector you'd need to resolve an object a few feet across at over 200,000 miles. Doing it from the surface of the earth presents additional problems because the atmosphere distorts things. At one time it would have been impossible to do from the Earth's surface. Nowadays there are adaptive optics and arrays of many telescopes that allow you to composite many images and let the errors cancel out. Even amateur astronomers can take advantage of image "stacking"; taking hundreds or thousands of images and computationally determining what bits of the image are "real" and discarding those that are results of atmospheric interference.

A thought occured to me with your post. Currently there is no optical telescope large enough to discern even the lunar module, but I wonder if it'd be possible to detect it using other types of telescopes...

nice job on the episode #, there is a lot of MST3K on you tube, a friend of mine was watching it last week and told me about it, so i watched a couple this weekend, didn't remember which though.

:Eyecrazy: Ummm... you don't have to travel to the moon to know that it doesn't stay lit 100% of the time. It has day and night, just like the Earth.


I think he means the visible part to earth is the same at all times based on its rates of revolution and rotation.